END TO END BERNERS: The Official Bernie Sanders 2020 Crew thread

And it's not really as if his campaign is going that well

I’m not sure what the barometer is for a campaign “going well”

being the california frontrunner can help, but the real key is not being tedious.

I just don't get the idea that the Sanders campaign is going well on paper? He is polling ten points behind Biden in the 538 average, and Buttigieg has been surging in the early states. He seems to have overtaken Elizabeth Warren once more, but that's not enough, is it?

here's a better reckoning:

California poll: LATimes/UC Berkeley

Sanders 24% (+5 since Sept.)
Warren 22% (-7)
Biden 14% (-6)
Buttigieg 12% (+6)
Harris 7%* (-1)

(*conducted before she dropped out)https://t.co/z9wl5lAgkw pic.twitter.com/Vj9OQR6jGA

— Sahil Kapur (@sahilkapur) December 5, 2019

tbf Harris might see an uptick now that she's out of the running

Lol

Tsongas came in 2nd place in NY two weeks after he dropped out of the race

in all seriousness I don't see any reason yet to assume Buttigieg has legs, and if/when people who aren't Harris drop out, most of those other candidates' fans (eg Gabbard, Yang) seem more likely to migrate to Bernie than anyone else. Biden still by some distance the biggest worry but I mean his brain could leak out the side of his skull at any moment

i definitely think it's worth noting, especially on the thread devoted to dudes' primary run lol, but i don't honestly see it as a huge deal. it seems to me his support does not come from joy anne reid reply guys who are super tuned-in to stories about primary polls

Classic fred b itt. Sanders campaign not doing that well (he's the front runner), Mayor Pete doing well (no one that isn't white will vote for him)

From someone who has a clue.

My take about this stuff is that being underrated in the major press relative to actual data is probably good for the Sanders campaign at this point. https://t.co/izXG5JbS87

— Osita Nwanevu (@OsitaNwanevu) December 5, 2019

yeah it was Osita's thread that got me thinking about this stuff. (lol at the apparently real Jesse Jackson magazine cover downthread)

yes absolutely. the msm has a toxic reputation - it's a good thing if they seem hostile to you. (see also: djt)

in all seriousness I don't see any reason yet to assume Buttigieg has legs, and if/when people who aren't Harris drop out, most of those other candidates' fans (eg Gabbard, Yang) seem more likely to migrate to Bernie than anyone else. Biden still by some distance the biggest worry but I mean his brain could leak out the side of his skull at any moment

― Simon H., 5. december 2019 17:10 (three minutes ago) bookmarkflaglink

Right, but here's the problem. According to Nate Silver, Gabbard is polling at 1,6, Yang at 3,2. Biden is almost ten points ahead.

Like I said, he's still by some distance the biggest problem.

That said, imo anything that chips away at his narrative of inevitability will chip away at his inevitability.

Being the frontrunner with white centrist melts is strategically better than being the frontrunner in California, btw. Sad as that is. Iowa matters a lot. I think Buttigieg is going to fall as well, btw, once the media takes a more critical look.

Re Gabbard & Yang hives: I def anticipate some of their supporters coming over to Bernie, but I can just as easily picture either or both run bing third party and maintaining virtually all their weird respective fan bases. I can also honestly see some of those folks spitefully voting for Trump, assuming they even show up at all.

But none of that matters in the primary :)

Here is the kind of shit Nate Silver peddles every day on twitter:

am i losing my fucking mind. did every pundit just get together and decide this never happened https://t.co/qx3kpQfZtu pic.twitter.com/xXaVUySDv0

— Virgil Xmas 🎄 (@virgiltexas) December 3, 2019

Go home, xyzzzz, you're embarrassing yourself.

The clueless follow the clueless.

Three weeks till Baby Yoda Fred, that's more your level

Did Virgil Texas get together and decide that Jesse Jackson got 1.5% in the Iowa caucus in 1984?

nate silver is totally otm that iowa and nh are shitty states to start the primaries in and it's partially bc they're so unrepresentative of our nation as a whole. if the DNC had any brains at all they'd make the first primaries rotate based on what states in the last general were the closest (aka the most swing states) to try and produce the candidate most likely to win the most important states.

And I’m not just (only partially) saying this bc I think PA should get to go firet

IA and NH are pretty insane about keeping their status. They will move the voting into December or earlier if prodded. (check Stranglehold podcast)

DNC has the power to ignore the results tho

shocking that a white minority insists on clinging to power by whatever means necessary, surely there is no precedent for such behavior in our political system

NH law: “The presidential primary election shall be held on the second Tuesday in March or on a Tuesday selected by the secretary of state which is 7 days or more immediately preceding the date on which any other state shall hold a similar election, whichever is earlier, of each year when a president of the United States is to be elected or the year previous…”

nate silver is totally otm that iowa and nh are shitty states to start the primaries in

this wasn't really what was in dispute

He is right about why they are shitty as well.

We're sort of off topic now but VT is right that Nate's "dataset" is way too limited for him to be making authoritative claims

theres been maybe 7 competitive nonincumbent iowa caucuses in this timeframe, and fewer involving nonwhite candidates. nate describes that as “40 years of data” to huckster people into thinking that’s statistically significant. this fuckin bimbo i swear to god https://t.co/HXqWCNL9jY

— Virgil Xmas 🎄 (@virgiltexas) December 4, 2019

That's completely idiotic. There are other states than Iowa - I may be a foreigner, but I know as much - and the dynamic that certain demographics might like certain candidates is kinda well founded. From 40 years of data.

i do not understand the fucking point of this conversation

It's a tankie melt argument, as bad as anything centrists cook up. OF COURSE giving extra white states extra influence is bad for minority candidates.

i'm glad virgil was able to draw himself away from his glass cocaine table long enough to own nate silver and kamala harris all at once

theres been maybe 7 competitive nonincumbent iowa caucuses in this timeframe

from 1976-2016 there were 11 dem caucuses. 1996 and 2012 were non-competitive, but 1980 was definitely not.

"maybe 7" is the kind of hard data that i go crazy for

in another tweet VT agree that they're shitty unrepresentative/arbitrary states to start with! what's arguing against is making the case for that based on data wonkery

*what he's, misplaced my glass table

i do not understand the fucking point of this conversation

― american bradass (BradNelson), Thursday, December 5, 2019 10:30 AM (four minutes ago) bookmarkflaglink

Come on Simon, that's not what Nate did to begin with. That's a new argument VT concocted because he realized he was shitting himself in public.

We don't have to pretend we're idiots who don't know anything. 'Maybe 7' is a great example of this.

Come on Simon, that's not what Nate did to begin with. That's a new argument VT concocted because he realized he was shitting himself in public.

― Frederik B, Thursday, December 5, 2019 9:36 AM (one minute ago) bookmarkflaglink

game knows game

God I miss the days where marxists were more likely to be hardcore history/sociology nerds, rather than podcasters who can't count to seven.

marxists are into hardcore history?

Fred and Mordy's nonstop po-faced posts and concern trolls in this thread are almost amusing.

and I once again ritually FP'd myself for helping stoke this

"now imagine you were a proletarian, and the bourgeoisie are appropriating the surplus value you create"